Leonard v. State

The circumstantial evidence introduced by the prosecution was purely negative in its character, and the inference of the defendant’s guilt, which might have arisen from this negative testimony,, was so rebutted by positive proof, not inconsistent therewith, that he had earned and had received a sufficient amount of money to maintain himself, that the verdict finding him guilty of vagrancy was not authorized by law, and a new trial should have been granted. Though numerous witnesses, whose testimony is uneontradicted, testified, that they had not seen the defendant work, that he had no…